Slashdot Mirror
Bush Reveals New Space Policy
Josh Fink writes "Space.com is reporting that President Bush has unveiled his new space policy. From the article: 'U.S. assets must be unhindered in carrying out their space duties,' the Bush space policy says, stressing that 'freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.'... As a civil space guideline, the policy calls upon NASA to 'execute a sustained and affordable human and robotic program of space exploration and develop, acquire, and use civil space systems to advance fundamental scientific knowledge of our Earth system, solar system, and universe.' While this policy does seem to push for more civil involvement in space for exploration and research, the article does go on to say, 'The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."' So it will push into the intelligence community, and will supercede a similar policy from 1996. You can read the entire policy."
Can you say, "Nuclear Space Drive"?
Bush's policy effectively states that the usage of nuclear power as engines of exploration is considered to take priority over any over-reaching treaties that ban nuclear power for the purposes of weaponry. Which means that the United States would consider a treaty like the 1963 Test Ban Treaty (the one that effectively killed the Orion) to not apply to space propulsion. Which, IMHO, can only be a good thing in the modern day world.
Any concerns over the environmental effects of launch are much more effectively handled by environmental groups rather than treaties designed with weapons in mind rather than actual fall-out issues. If they have a realistic concern, then the public will have an opportunity to evaluate that concern, and either take action or reject it. (The latter happening with the Cassini-Huygens environmental protest.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...that Bush is, in fact, a space cadet.
(Oh come on you knew it was coming)
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
Whats the betting we would be there in under 12months?
It might even be enough to tell him that there are devices with Nuculear capabilities there.
liqbase
Because not two months ago, he wanted to shut down the ISS missions because they were estimated to cost $200M.
... weekly?
Isn't that like one tenth of what we blow on a war
Mod this to oblivion, regardless of what positive action he takes, I still don't like him.
So it seems the Space Arms Race is begining afresh. We just have to hope that the technology it produces outweighs the destruction.
http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman
... use civil space systems to advance fundamental scientific knowledge of our Earth system, solar system, and universe.
We be broke so start saving and pooling your Virgin Air points
... space ain't
And if Bush was so all-God-fired about just WMD or Nukes (and I see you've taken to the President's pheonic spelling convention), then we would have been a bit more proactive on the N. Korean front.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
He is not truly interested unless they are a good excuse to achieve ulterior motives.
Ive had this question in my mind since a loong time, but is it possible legally for any one country to claim things in space as part of their country?
For example can the US claim the Moon or Mars (in future) just because they landed their countrymen on the body, and planted some flags?
Are there any legal guidelines for this?
[quote]'freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.'... [/quote] What is Bush scared of? Some fundamentalist marsian threathend to blow up all US space going vehicles?
If you impeach him, then Cheney becomes president, no? err, I'll take the idiot over the evil mastermind. It at least provides amusement (though not with not any more protection)
Totally off topic, but is that STUPID IBM AD breaking slashdot for anyone else? It's taking me to a new window where only the ad exists.
develop, acquire, and use civil space systems to advance fundamental scientific knowledge of our Earth system, solar system, and universe
Gee, George, maybe you should start with science down here on the ground.
You've shown nothing but contempt for earth-bound scientific knowledge, except where it can help you bomb third-world countries into fourth-world countries. Why should we believe that you'd treat space any differently?
Wow, we can't discuss the article and what good could come of it, we ahve to immediatly start politician bashing. Hey lets just stop submiting articles to /. instead why don't we just put a article on the front page that says "George W. Bush. DISCUSS!"
We would get rid of all these useless interesting topics about technology and we could all just bitch with reckless abandon about our favorite politician.
I mean FUCKING HELL. If any other president had said this most of you asshats would be having fucking orgasam on the spot.
You mad
So North Korea gets nukes and we don't care, but if they try to get nukes in space there'll be hell to pay. This sounds like another diversionary tactic of the Bush administration, like Gay Marriage or how we were going to Go to Mars.
Thank you for helping us help you help us all.
Mars, bitches!
Great. So now even the exploration of space has been redefined as a national security issue. Cue fat budgets for space lasers, Son of Star Wars and other such nonsense, in case Al-Qaeda acquire a space shuttle from North Korea. (Or something.)
I'm glad Bush proved he can be trusted with our space program. He perfected the Space Shuttle (by grounding it for years, now headed for termination). He put an American on Mars, just like his father promised when in political trouble a decade and a half ago. He's making sure other countries don't take American nuclear expansion as a signal to proliferate their own nukes, like in N Korea, Iran, India.
Yes, by all means trust this sober, reasonable man of science with an expensive program to put nukes in space. After he rebuilt New Orleans around the Space Shuttle fueltank factory, everyone there will gladly tell us that he can do anything he sets his mind to.
--
make install -not war
Res publica non dominetur
Space-based MIRVs.
It's like Missle Command. With a self-denying alcoholic on the rampage.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Here's my plan. Let's leave the planet in two groups, split by who can get along with each other. One of us will go and form the 12 Colonies and be prosperous. The other will disappear into legend and create the 13th Colony. Sound good to everyone? I think I'll go with the 12 Colonies group.
And by the way, I've got this great idea for a cybernetic AI construct to make our lives in the Colonies easier.....
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Great. I think I can imagine Rummy's plans to improve space exploration. He'll take NASA's crew recommendations and cut them in half, send only enough fuel to get there, but not back, and ditch all the unnecessaries like food and water. It will be a leaner, more mobile space force.
Thank you. Drive through.
If you impeach him, then Cheney becomes president, no? The only difference is that he would then have the title to go along with the already over-utilized power. I mean, hell, you can see his freakin lips move as it is...
Not a very good puppet show, IMO.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.
"develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space" means defense.
"and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries" means attack capability.
I personally don't like the "attack" part as it leads to a space arms race and the militarisation of space.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Bush could advocate an end to the DMCA, banning DRM, and making OSS manditory in all government entities and people on slashdot would STILL bitch. The only debate this article should be sparking on slashdot is between the "let's do all we can to explore space" crowd and the "we should be spending this money on my favorite agenda" crowd. Shit, people, get a hobby.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In the Pacific, not far from where my plane was shot down, and I was comforted by thoughts of freedom of action in space. no, that's the other George Bush... http://www.fortfreedom.org/b11.htm
What a surprise. A recent leak about US satellites being blinded by Chinese lasers and now a more military flavor to the US space program.
First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
First - land war for control of territory resulting in nation-states
Second - Sea and Land war resulting in continental/regional trade blocks
Now - Space war resulting in what? Solar System trade blocks? Space nations?
This is just the first step in preparation for fighting the next big war.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Has a firm "don't ask, don't tell" policy been defined before we send droids into space?
Where were you when the voynix came?
Bush Reveals New Space Police. nt
What's up with that plan? Iraq gotcher tongue?...or maybe were those just political grand standing?
Bush probably has an ulterior motive. He'll put all the terrorists and Democrats into space on a colony ship destined for deep space. Perhaps he'll name the ship "Botany Bay."
This is a war on Terra.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Maybe reaction to last month's laser incident with China?
Access to space is like access to international waters -- if anything there is greater need to secure space from territorial claims than international waters. By claiming sovereigny over space above the 100km mark, a nation in effect denies access to space to every other country, since every satellite not in geosynchronous orbit above yourland mass would violate your "territorial space".
What China did was in one sense just an aggressive extension of the usual spy/counter spy stuff; you fly close to my territorial waters with listening equipment, I try to jam the equipment. However it was extremely risky in my opinion. First, if the satellite had been damaged it would be tantamount to an act of war, like sinking a ship in international waters. Secondly, it invites US interference with Chinese space vehicles. If China wants to become a world superpower, it will need spy satellites. If you're playing standoff with another country, with both coutries with their fingers on the nuclear trigger, misunderstandings can get costly. You want to see what the other guy is doing and you want the other guy to see what you are doing.
Reading carefully, this parapgraph suggests that the US is planning to engage in a kind of "tit for tat" crippling of Chinese satellites. This is a bad thing for strategic stability.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The uber-narcissistic Bush administration is terrified of one of the most exciting potential benefits of space research, its potential of making human beings realize just how alike we are and how precious the Earth is for our species survival, and so they hope to militarize space research and exploration to prevent its powerful, unifying effect on humanity. This kind of thinking has the potential to hurt the US tremendously because the rest of the world will cooperate on space research despite us, setting us back still further both scientifically and economically. The US is coasting on past achievements now. It won't last.
....there is only war."
;-D
I support this move by the president. All we need now is an army of fanatical, genetcally engineered supermen in powered armor with boltguns!!
Oh come on....you just knew someone would post it!
That's pretty much what we'd expect from that source, but it doesn't make it any better.
Surely there should be some sort of Logic Advisor sitting next to the President's speech writers. I don't imagine that he wants to look evil and dishonest in front of a world audience well versed in elementary logic.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
You are so right. The reason we pick on Bush is because we don't like the way he talks. Some of us don't even like the way he looks. It's not his policies at all, which have been perfect, and reasonable, and have provided for the safety, prosperity, and continued freedom of the citizens of the United States, and the stability of the world in general.
Our bitching about Bush is, in fact, based on the dislike of him doing a better job than Clinton or Nixon. As President, Bush has shown exceptional judgment and wisdom. His policies have done more for peace through strength, stability through war, safety through fear, prosperity through enrichment of the rich, and truth through lies than any other President before.
You are *so* absolutely correct. Thanks for opening my eyes. I've been blinded by facts, logic, and reason for so long, I forgot how to truly *see*.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"As you know, you go to space with the ship you have. Its not the ship you might want or wish to have at a later time."
Both need the other to 'justify their exisTENSE'.
I have often wondered if they have some kind of secret agreement, ever since the NK missile test on the eve of Japan's vote on purchasing an expensive US missile warning system in the 90s.
When US will to continue spending on obscenely expensive, unproven missile systems or neocon popularity falls, NK rattles the saber.
Not to say that North Korea isn't a hellhole, perhaps the worst place on Earth to live, it is. However, the US should be doing more constructive things to upset Kim Jong Ils apple cart. Instead, everything we do plays into their movie of us and conversely, them of ours of them. Its like a VERY bad movie, except its unfortunately true.
Thats what happens when narcissists rule. Terrible things happen. For example, look at World War II. (Hitler, Stalin were narcissists according to the OSS psychological analysis of them)
Nobody is questioning whether Bush and Cheney are narcissists either. They are the classic examples. So is Kim Jong Il.
There are imaging tools now that can identify these people by barinwave patterns. They should be used to weed out politicians with NPD, before they are allowed to gain power.
Since WW II, the U.S. has loomed as the most militarily and economically powerful nation in the world. Now China is making a bid to become a hegemony of its own. This is a Good Thing [tm].
Superior might through superior technology has always been the mantra of developed nations. Consequently, the U.S. experienced huge gains over the last few decades due to (perceived) competition with the Russians. Like it or not, most of the best technologies we have were originally purposed for military applications, financed through the Pentagon system, and then gradually re-purposed for civilian use (the Internet being a great example of this). This has always been the silver lining.
It would be melodramatic to claim that the U.S. is on the brink of another Cold War, this time with the Chinese. However, "friendly" competition with China will help the space program, it will help Silicon Valley--it will help the United States in any area in which there is a perceived technological deficiency.
We stand to gain so much if we're not all blown to bits first.
The militarization of space or son of starwars. A new armsrace and massive budgets to the military industrial complex.
"Approval by the President or his designee shall be required to launch and use United States Government and non-government spacecraft utilizing nuclear power sources with a potential for criticality or above a minimum threshold of radioactivity"
was freedom of action in space
davecb5620@gmail.com
What part of "new legal regimes" and "proposed arms control agreements" don't you understand?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Naturally you won't be able to bring lip gloss, toothpaste, or any other gel or liquid into outer space. Or shoes.
a disease:
See Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) :
How to Recognize a Narcissist
at this URL
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html
We all have to deal with difficult people. Some days we can be pretty difficult ourselves. Recognizing the difference between normal difficulties and personality disorders can be crucial to decisions about entering new relationships and continuing existing relationships.
The material on Narcissistic Personality Disorder that is published for lay readers is not very informative, even though most people have had to cope with a narcissist at one time or another. If you were raised by a narcissistic parent, then you've been taught that the narcissist is always right and you're the one who's wrong. A lifetime of such mistreatment typically instills lack of confidence in your own judgment, along with habitual shame at never getting it right or being good enough to deserve the air that you breathe. The children of narcissists may not have realized that the quirks and oddities of their impossible-to-please parents are not in any way unique or special but are in fact the symptoms of a personality disorder.
The information on the Web is very repetitive and amounts to little more than the diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV. Clinical descriptions of Narcissistic Personality Disorder don't describe the things that are most shocking and puzzling in everyday interaction with narcissists.
This material is offered for comfort and solace to people who've had bad (or merely weird) experiences with narcissists. If you're looking for ammunition to attack someone, please look elsewhere. If you're looking for a diagnosis, you'll need to consult a psychiatrist. If you're looking for help with your term paper, go here.I've written entirely from my own experience and personal interest; I'm not a therapist or counselor, have no relevant credentials, and can't refer you to lawyers.
-- Joanna Ashmun
"The study of human nature may be thought of as an art with many tools at its disposal, an art closely related to all the other arts, and relevant to them all. In literature and poetry, particularly, this is especially significant. Its primary aim must be to broaden our knowledge of human beings, that is to say, it must enable us all to become better, fuller, and finer people." -- Alfred Adler
He didn't ground it, NASA did. He just killed it and seems to be sticking to his guns on that one. For that I will cheer on his "vision" for space exploration.
It finally means we are not bound to a billion dollar baby, something that has been sucking the life out of NASA since the 80s. Maybe if launches didn't cost so much we might actually put more up there???
I know you were being sarcastic but the point remains, no one would kill it before and there were just as many reasons to do so before. Now at least one or more of the replacement ideas will finally get off the ground. (at the rate we were going the shuttle would be the b52 of space)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The PNAC statement drawn up before Bush even took office says the US must dominate not only the surface of the Earth, but space and cyberspace too.
He's just following the script that Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and others wrote up for him.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Where in the Constitution does it authorize him to spend many billions of dollars on the space program?
It wont take much for some loony countries to screw over space for the rest of us. Seriously launching merely a 20 tons (possible with 1 heavy launch trip) of ball berings or some other crap up there and you have a hazardous LEO zone permanently preventing anything from being able to hang out in low earth orbit for any long term (1 yr+) periods (run the full math it actually takes less than you think). At the minimum the hazards will prevent manned launches. I'm sure I read somewhere the chinese were looking at this. Also, it's more possible to screw the GEO orbit .. but that's not to useful seeing as how most assets will be in LEO.
If Bush had anything good to replace the Shuttle, then killing it would have been good. This is the guy who tried to kill Hubble, too, without anything to replace it.
It's obvious that Bush hates all science that isn't a weapon. If we had a reasonable president instead of that jackass, we'd have a reasonable space program. We don't. We have a nuclear space militarization policy, garnished with fake "Man on Mars" propaganda. While other countries are planning space industries to capitalize on our R&D. I'd prefer the Shuttle.
--
make install -not war
Your second amendment rights :P
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The legal guideline is that might makes right.
its potential of making human beings realize just how alike we are and how precious the Earth is for our species survival
Did you not see the end of that episode? We are supposed to become sophisticated in war, not bring about world peace. Do you care nothing for our planet!?
hahaha.... wait... he is not joking, this would have been funny if it was a joke...
Shit, people, get a hobby.
I have one, thanks.
It's called "Baiting Bush Supporters." Problem is, it's no fun any more-- it's *way* to easy.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
when they built that ladder to heaven?
Wow, it must be election year again.
Sorry about that. I jumped off the handle at the implication we'd support another President who wants to militarize space. Most of us who are bashing Bush for this also would've bashed Clinton, or any other President-- perhaps not as fervently, but Bush has given us ample reason to distrust him.
Anyway, I'll try to take my little red pill before responding like that again.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
...i was under the impression that we still had problems to deal with on this planet.
-- lol pwned
Here is what I think.
1. Nothing will come of it. Based on Bushes last promises in relation to space and how much funding has been cut and given to Iraq.
2. If anything ever comes of it even money says that it goes to one of his "no-bid" friends whos money can be traced back to them. TBH I am surprised the administration hasn't been pulled up on profiteering.
As I mentioned elsewhere this is probably being done to just show off for the November elections. Problem is that space geeks have long memories.
Seriously. Don't you realize that the various countries on Earth have arsenals that exceed 50,000 nuclear weapons. Even a few of those detonated in populated areas would cause huge parts of the Earth to become inhabitable.
I don't think that the younger generation here in the US in any way realizes the implications of this. Imagine Ground Zero in every US city. Remember, metal and plastic burn, if heated enough. There would not be any survivors in the inner cities and the outlying areas would be contaminated for centuries by radioactivity, toxics, heavy metals, etc. It would bankrupt the US in every possible way.
Would you like to suddenly have to move to South America? Even if the South Americans welcomed us with open arms (not likely) neither health or home insurance cover cover "acts of war", so even if you were not killed, along with your job, your equity would be gone and you would also be on your own for any and all medical costs related to it, forever.
Last time I looked, medical care for cancer cost thousands of dollars a day.
Previously there have been some trial balloons by the Airforce (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,14493,13 45460,00.html and http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /higher_ground_040222.html) who really wanted to add "space warfare" to their portfolio, and now it's been enshrined in national policy.
Ensuring US superiority in space ... that's what the new policy boils down to.
I just wonder what the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians the Brazilians, the Japanese, and the Europeans are going to think of it. Will they agree to US space superiority or might they perhaps start space weaponisation programs of their own?
And what about the cost? Could it be that in the long run it will cost the US less to secure its national interests by aiming for parity and a reasonable deterrent instead of starting yet another arms race in search of superiority? I wonder.
I'll say one thing for the current administration ... if there is even a remote chance of turning a conflict on interest into a real conflict they can be relied on to identify it and steer that way.
The U.S. has superior access to resources on Earth (primarily through our economic and military control of allied and satellite countries), which is what ultimately sustains the U.S. economic and therefore military lead.
However, the potential resources (energy and raw materials) available from space could eventually dwarf the Earth's resources, and if these space-based resources became available, the U.S. economic and military lead would evaporate.
So to preserve U.S. economic and military lead, the best policy is to DISCOURAGE anything space-based beyond Earth Orbit applications
Is a good example of an international body with a set of laws, court and penalties. A State can decide to change its tariff but then he will pay the price.
Sorry..
But hopefully, you get the point.
The nuclear tests in the 50s and 60s caused thousands of cases of cancer in the US, they now realize.
Thousands of 9-11 survivors are also now battling for medical care for the COPD=like symptoms that they have. Nobody wants to pay. These people were called heroes. Now their health is gone. The EPA claimed everything was safe. They lied.
See the New York Times website for an excellent series of stories on this medical nightmare that they are dealing with and the serious denial they are facing from society on their sicknesses.
I think Bush saw the trailer for the new Transformers movie and is planning to wage war on Mars.
or whatever.
It's not easy to maneuver a rock. First, you have to put a propulsion system on it, which would require a team to assemble and install. Then you have to push it without causing it to crumble. All this takes time, money, and energy, and it would be hard to hide.
A nuke could be small, quickly-deployed, maneuverable, and generally stealthy. The time for retaliation would be short, reducing the chance of a counter-attack. You could put a *lot* of them in orbit for the same price as one dropped rock, and they would be ready at a moment's notice. Within half-an-hour, China could be a glass parking lot.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
You woke up on the wrong side of the bed and decided to barf on everyone. Go back to bed.
I'm so tired of this counter "argument" to space exploration.
Webguy, if we wait until all problems are solved on Earth, we'll never go past low Earth orbit again. I hate to be the breaker of bad news, but many of the problems on Earth are UNSOLVABLE. They are caused by masses of idiots doing idiotic things, and I don't just mean the current global leadership. There's no amount of money or ingenuity to fix that.
Can't bring coffe, but somebody put all these m-f-ing snakes on this m-f-ing starship.
f u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmng
I'll go start colony 14, and call it Galt. We'll sit back and laugh at the other 13.
Reading carefully, this parapgraph suggests that the US is planning to engage in a kind of "tit for tat" crippling of Chinese satellites. This is a bad thing for strategic stability.
Actually, I disagree. Tit for tat is a necessary part of the game. You don't have stability without it. If the US were to destroy all of China's space assets, an action which wouldn't be tit for tat (since it is disproportionate to the original harm), then that would be destabilizing."The United States shall seek to minimize the creation of orbital debris by government and non-government operations in space in order to preserve the space environment for future generations,"
Translation: "A method to keep those pesky private launches and private activities to a minimum by creating standards they have to maintain while we the government exempt ourselves as we do with everything else"
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
An organization that was started to keep the peace and prevent wars, and that hasn't done those things, is a failure.
Oh, wait...
Freedom of speech doesn't come with bandwidth.
....hold the high ground.
A quick review of military history will reveal a staggering number of battles decided on the question of an elevated position. Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Gallipoli....all decided by the high ground.
Modern combat is guided by information gained via aerial reconaissance. Any threat to any satellites will be viewed - should be viewed - by other countries as a potential attempt to control the high ground.
The moon is higher ground than low orbit satellites.
Mars will be higher ground when space travel evolves. Before humankind colonizes another planet (Mars), interplantary warfare should be someone's first concern - not for the contemporary generation, but for generations yet to come.
Because there will always be someone trying to control the high ground.
To just let China do whatever they want, without consequence? Sounds "disproportionate".
damaged by dogma
Seems you could use the Advisor. Jet fighters and anti-aircraft missiles, guns and artillery are all means to deny an adversary freedom of movement in the air. Yet would you claim you do not have freedom of movement in the Terrestrial Atmosphere because of them and their potential use against you?
You have conflated the ability to take out enemy targets with the complete elimination of the ability for the targets to peacefully exist otherwise. You have conflated a temporary action with a full-time one. You have thus committed a logical fallacy - in the process of trying to impugne another's ability in logic. You have further assumed that the President wrote that document. A fallacious assumption I am certain.
Logic is not a form of universal truth, it is a means of confirming that a given conclusion is an accurate conclusion based on the premises presented, and nothing more. The premises can be false, but the conclusion could still be logical.
In the argument you failed to logically analyzed we have the following:
Argument 1:
Premise 1: Freedom of action in space is important
Premise 2: Freedom of action in space is important to the US and it's interests
Conclusion 1: The US should have freedom of action in space
Argument 2:
Premise 1: The US (and US interests') should have freedom of action in space
Premise 2: Other entities may strive to prevent or hinder US (and US interests') action in space
Premise 3: Threats to US freedom action in space will involve non-US utilization of action in space
Conclusion: The US needs to be able to deny such action in space in order to protect it's freedom of action in space
The above arugments, premises, and conclusions do not logically lead to the "There will be no freedom of action in space". Your argument that they do is unsupported and erroneous, not to mention fallacious. To demonstrate further, change the word space to the word sea, or to air, or to land.
Furthermore, you assertion that the speech writers need a logic advisor is also erroneous. This wasn't a speech, it was/is a document not designed to be read aloud by the President. Surely you should have a reality advisor as well as a logic advisor sitting next to you. I don't imagine you want to look dumb in front of the world of well-versed, informed, and logical slashdot readers.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Find and Replace 'U.S.' and 'United States' with all of the following: China, Russia, Japan, Israel, Germany, France, U.K., Iran, or any country that is threatened by any country implementing the following...
U.S. assets must be unhindered in carrying out their space duties,'...'freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.'...'The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries.'
In otherwords, the U.S. is demanding the right to interpret any country's scientific exploration of space, or even its nominal activities as a nation as a military threat, and thus apply military force to attempt to put an end to it, much as it is doing in Iraq now or as Israel is doing in Lebanon now.
Oh great!
Legal Schmegal. What's "legal" truly mean .. the agreement of a certain number of people? You can claim whatever you like, but history says what you "own" comes down to what you are able to conquer, defend or willing to defend.
.. "liberation", "manifest destiny", "advancement of true civilization", etc. choose one
.. but it's something they can use as a "moral justification" for the future generations. And that's what legal is.
After that, moral justification is the easy part
For example, if Russia wanted the moon they can claim they were the first to plant a flag there back in the early sixties.
Thats all. They can even state that since the astronauts went in a suit they werent actually touching the moon. May seem lunatic
(1) Build a orbital "dry dock" facility for building large space-gong vessels. .... you get the idea :D
(2) Build the first space fighter carrier. Christen as the 'Galactica'. At the same time, develop the fighters to be carried, call them Vipers.
(3)
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
Reading carefully, this parapgraph suggests that the US is planning to engage in a kind of "tit for tat" crippling of Chinese satellites. This is a bad thing for strategic stability.
You mean to say "Reading as my bias indicates, this paragraph...". The ability described is fundamentally no different than the same capability we have for air, land, and sea. We are enterign a world where cheaper access to space is looming, and eventually will be as commoditized as air and sea travel are. The US doesn't want to lag behind in it's ability to perform military actions in space. Nor should it.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
So, you'd start a war with North Korea, China, and threathen Japan with the same?
Woah, you're out there all right. And you accuse Bush of being evil and stupid?
This is pretty bizarre coming from someone who claims to be 'against war'.
2001: A commission led by Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the newly nominated defense secretary, recommended that the military should "ensure that the president will have the option to deploy weapons in space." [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0518-02.h tm]
h tml]
2 0030306-9.html]
p #notes2]
c e.html?ex=1274068800&en=e2a17a59b511f204&ei=5088]
2002: Talking about planned militarization of space, Rumsfeld said "defending the U.S. requires prevention, self-defense and sometimes preemption." [http://www.space.com/news/rumsfeld_space_020204.
2003: Speaking about the status of the Space Commission recommendations at a Pentagon "town hall" meeting Rumsfeld suggested "...maybe we ought to think about taking a look at where we are -- and it's been a couple of years -- and give some thought to whether or not we've learned enough that we can make some more progress and finish the 20 percent, although it is a moving target." [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/
2004: General Lance Lord, commander of U.S. Air Force Space Command, explained, "We must establish and maintain space superiority. Modern warfare demands it. Our nation expects it. Simply put, it's the American way of fighting." [http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon.as
2005: "We haven't reached the point of strafing and bombing from space," Pete Teets, who stepped down last month as the acting secretary of the Air Force, told a space warfare symposium last year. "Nonetheless, we are thinking about those possibilities." [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/business/18spa
Proving once again that the Bush administration does stick to its convictions, even in the face of logic, reality or world opinion.
"We're going to have space, and lots of it. In fact, by the next election, we aim to fill most of the Universe with space. This space will create a defensive barrier between the United States and the terrorists who seek to harm us. It's my job to protect you and your family, and by surrounding Earth with space that's exactly what I'm doing, and I'm not going to let the laws or the Constitution of this country get in my way. The Constution is just a goddamned piece of paper filling up the very space we are trying to create. I am the decider and I have decided it!"
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
The ______ Agenda
Where do people get the idea that something like international laws actually exist? If a country decides to do something they'll just rewrite their own laws to allow it. If someone decides to ignore the UN or what not then it's not "illegal".
Your logic is completely false. If you decided on your own to ignore the speed limits for a time, and by any luck if you escape the ticket, does it make speeding laws unlawful ? Of course, not. It's the same with international rules. They are true rules, but they depend on the common willingness of participating nations to be enforced. Thus, if some major contributor fails to back up the rule in a specific case, the rule may not be enforced against a nation. But it doesn't make the situation lawful. Neither for the - at the moment - spared nation, nor for any other violator in the future.
On the other hands, nations can (and did) ally at UN level to enforce a rule against a non-UN member nation ; that's pretty much as making laws as can be.
...with nuc-u-lar powered lasers stuck to their heads!
I drank what? -- Socrates
Speaking of idiots, you realize that the plan to put tactical nukes on warheads was NOT Rumsfeld's idea and that it NEVER saw the light of day, right?
Tons of policies are dumped out of Capitol Hill by the truck load, very few having any kind of real effect. It's not like any of this is a law that has to be followed. The next president could very well over write this whole policy with a new one. Since every day space travel is getting closer and closer these policies will change rapidly and very possibly with each and every president from now until the collapse of the US. I'm not saying we are going to collapse any time soon it's just that nothing last forever especially governments. People get all tied in knots over policies and it makes no sense. If you take a look at you own place of work how many policies are completely ignored? I know in my office we have dozens that no one pays any attention to.
WTF?
"Sissy Spacek reveals new bush"
Taxes in most countries are primarily used to take care of the people who live there but in the US taxes are primarily used to maintain and empower the world's largest and busiest military force. When the government of the US decides it is going into space then it is going to need a LOT more money than it needs now. Even though the US government is hopelessly bankrupt it will find ways to bleed the US taxpayers even more dry than it is now doing and will give them even less in return for their taxes than it is now doing. There just isn't any money for this and there never will be. Extending the US military into space is an even more hopeless scenario that extending the US military into every country on the planet. This is not what the US government should be about and the financial consequences of the US attempting to do this, an effort that can only result in failure and bankruptcy, are as certain as the earth's revolution around the sun is.
Just how exactly is space exploration going to make us all realize how similiar we are? If you knew half as much about human psychology as your replies to your on post indicate you think you do (which you admit isn't much), you would be aware that most people have a very strong external locus of control. This isn't going to disappear the second we get to space and look at the planet. We're not all going to stand up and say, "Hey, you know what, all the crap that has happened in my life may actually be at least partially my fault, maybe I should have done something different." Perhaps you have an internal locus of control, good for you, but the rest of humanity is more likely to say its all your fault and want to harm you for it. I personally prefer the ability to defend myself from such attacks, which is exactly the point in the referenced document.
Furthermore, you may have rtfa, but did you rtfpda containing the document in question? Nowhere, I repeat nowhere in the document is the use of nuclear weapons discussed. Nuclear energy != nuclear weapons. For example radioisotope thermoelectric generators [wikipedia] are considered nuclear power and are likely one of the major technologies the document is refering to. As far as nuclear space propulsion, while it is true that one form of nuclear propulsion involves detonating nuclear and thermonuclear devices and riding their shock waves, it is not very likely to ever be used. Nuclear space propulsion is more likely to exist in the form of nuclear rocket engines [wikipedia] of various types. Constructed in space and used for interplanetary travel, these could be safe and effective at reaching such destinations as Mars in a matter of months versus years (and likely are the only practical methods to achieve this in the near future). This article is not about nuclear war. I am sick of hearing all you trolls saying OMFG!!1!!!!1 teh Bush sed NUcular, every1 panic!!1!!!
You mean to say "Reading as my bias indicates, this paragraph. The ability described is fundamentally no different than the same capability we have for air, land, and sea
First of all I do mean "reading carefully". Whether this thing is good, bad, or indifferent depends on your assertion that it is no different from any other military capability we have. I think it's hyperbole to say the situations are "no different". Clearly there is at least some differences.
I'm not against developing the capability of tit for tat or a military capability for space. I just think that if you look down the road we're heading on, using that capabilty on satellites is destabilizing, wheras the usual aerial and naval signal intelligence games we currently play are not. One is basic to our sense of strategic security, the other is instrumental in gaining tactical knowledge of enemy responses.
Is that a "fundamental" difference? I suppose semantically you could argue it either way. Is it a practical difference? Yes absolutely.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Simply put... Damned if you do... Damned if you don't.
Noone wants the U.S. to do anything _UNTIL_ we don't do anything.
Then everyone looks around at each other and collectively and in unison crys out "WHY DIDN'T THE U.S. DO ANYTHING!!!"
Whatever. The truth is we are secretly building a NPSV to transport all card carrying Americans to our secret beta site in Alpha-Centauri.
Earth belongs to you. Keep it.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
The environmental groups protest everything with involving the "n word".
Yes, and they should: the disposal issue has not been solved. All nuclear waste that is being generated is piling up in "temporary" locations. Furthermore, the way we use nuclear fuel right now is an irresponsible waste, since we're using only a few percent of the power that's contained in it. That way, fuel that should last several millennia is going to last less than a century.
If the US were to switch to breeder reactors that demonstrably eliminate most of the nuclear waste, you'd see a lot less opposition.
The Bush administration seems to be obsessed with "freedom of action". Nothing is pemitted to stand in its way: not Congress, not the UN, not the Supreme Court, not the Geneva Convention, not the Constitution, not the Ten Commandments,not anything. One might suspect that GWB is all about getting back at anyone who ever told him "No". Now who would that be? And what was the name of the country that Dad was too smart to invade?
Go home.
Bush's policy effectively states that the usage of nuclear power as engines of exploration is considered to take priority over any over-reaching treaties that ban nuclear power for the purposes of weaponry.
You don't seriously believe that Bush gives a damn about exploration, do you? Bush wants to put nuclear weapons into space, and nuclear reactors for powering other kinds of weapons.
In any case, this policy is complete and utter stupidity. If the US starts putting nuclear reactor, beam weapons, and nuclear bombs into space, so will other nations. Do you really think that France is going to sit by and let the US weaponize space without getting their own weapons up there? Do you really want a Chinese satellite flying overhead that can destroy any US city with no warning within seconds? Because that's where things are heading: a space arms race.
And in the end, huge amounts of tax money is going to be wasted (of course, it's going to be wasted on Bush's corporate buddies), and there's going to be a bunch of weapon systems that can't realistically be used, yet still decrease our security because they can fall into the wrong hands (remember: they're all remotely controlled by computer).
Anonymous denial Coward, back up your mere denial assertions with some citations.
--
make install -not war
I would rather have the treaties. I actually do trust the experts more than people the environmental groups.
We have treaties. They say that Bush shouldn't do what he is doing. They have one problem: they are international, and, of course, Bush feels under no obligation to observe international treaties since, after all, those people didn't elect him and he can drum up enough xenophobia to support breaking the treaties. So, treaties don't control Bush or what the US is doing.
We have a law to state he is not a WAR CRIMINAL.
Does any (other) sane person wonder why we need a law that specifies Bush is not a war criminal?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Honestly, most of what you said went above my head. I was speaking from my gut and my gut tells me uneqivocably that we are far less secure under a neocon government than a non-neocon one. This has been my feeling since the day I heard that George II was running. My first thought then was 'oh no, in six months we will be in a war'. I guess I was wrong..
(It was actually nine months)
The most distressing aspect of the current administration is their jettisoning of the "no first use' doctrine that had served us and the rest of the world well for so very long. Even Saint Ronald Reagan felt strongly about no first use. (he supported it, at least in theory)
We also are strongly fighting universal standards of law and human rights - a prime example is our opposition to the International Criminal Court - a court that could be used to try the leaders of nations that commit genocide. (and first use of nuclear weapons is inevitably genocide because civilians are always the bulk of the casualties of nuclear war.)
Perhaps we oppose the ICC so strongly because members of our own government and/or their advisors fear prosecution under it. (A prime example is Henry Kissinger, who ordered such obscenities as the secret bombing of Cambodia against US law, initiating a chain of events that led to the breakdown of civil law in that country. And many other US-sponsored, still largely unknown CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY)
Look at it this way. If the US did not reject no-first-use and fight organizations like the ICC we would have a FAR STRONGER PLATFORM from which to argue against countries like North Korea gaining nuclear weapons.
Why? Because of North Korea's terrible, terrible record on human rights.. their huge gulag of prison camps with the worst conditions one could ever imagine. Because they are guilty of a level of amoral and Machiavellian manipulation of world events that makes this imperative (that a nation like that should NOT have nuclear weapons) obvious.
The only problem? We have now lied so much and postured so much and yes, even killed so much, that many people who *should* know better now naiively equate us with North Korea in terms of evil.
Without a moral United States, human rights in the rest of the world suffer greatly.
That is why I do NOT trust this regime to make peaceful use of space. They politicize everything they touch. They do not understand science except as another tool of warfare. They suffer from a scarcity-driven mentality that pushes us back into the Dark Ages in our interpersonal relations with the rest of the world.
The United States needs to 'stop terrorism' not by fighting so many mindless wars that we create a whole new world of new terrorists.. (even the CIA admits this) but by ENDING THE KINDS OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITIES THAT CREATE TERRORISTS.
Until we realize that we will be our own worst enemy... Until we realize that we should not go into space, because we can't even handle or our own planet..or our own future..
In 50 years technology will do almost everything workers do now.. That means most of the kinds of people who would be people working today won't have jobs.. You will work not because you need to.. (obviously, that argument doesnt hold water) but because you love to..
If we keep the current mentality going into that future (which is inherently apolitical and non-denominational) our leaders will soon be panicking about the huge numbers of 'useless' people and another world war.. a genocide... will be the only possible result..
Thats why it is imperative that people realize that we can change our future.. War is not inevitable.. It is not the natural fate of man..
If there is one message the Jesuses, the Buddhas, the other enlightened people who could see ahead were telling us it is that..
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..
It is within our power now to eliminate poverty and make terrorism irrelevant.. We are not doing that because we are ADDICTED TO WAR..
the stakes are huge.. all of our survival..
There will not be a World War IV...
This is a logical extension of US policy since the middle of the 19th Century.
/. crowd will jump in with examples of US hypocrisy but that's simply naive: NO COUNTRY ON EARTH PLACES THE WELFARE OF OTHERS AHEAD OF ITS OWN. (And if you think they do, you're stupid.)
Since the beginnings of American diplomacy, the US has been committed to a 'freedom of action' policy just about everywhere in the world. Yes, yes, I know a lot of the
So the US stance is simply being extended to space - where the US is determined to maintain 'freedom of action' (for itself and its allies). No shock there.
The 'neutralization' of space was only going to last as long as pretty much nobody needed/wanted it. I know that probably half or more of the readers here immediately see this policy as some sort of American effort to hegemonize space. So be it. I would simply point to the Hegemonic powers of the last, say, 200 years: Russia/Soviets, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain. Aside from Great Britain (of which the US is really just Great Britain 2.0), there's not a one of them I'd rather more trust as the hegemon. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Same with Antarctica - as long as its just some benighted frozen wilderness down there, all the nations of the world will 'play nice'. The moment it's exploitable for commercial or strategic advantage, this will play out again.
-Styopa
The ability described is fundamentally no different than the same capability we have for air, land, and sea.
/I claim dominon over the tinfoil mines
Wrong-o, baby. The grandparent is correct in most of his reasoning; the only problem is that he doesn't go far enough. Space is fundamentally different from land, sea and air in that it takes only a short time to cover immense distances. So a network of laser defence satellites has three distinct advantages for the nation that first completes it.
1. It provides interdiction ability for missiles, from ICBMs to hacked-together Palestinian tin cans, and for aircraft. This allows the ability to destroy any and all airborne targets with relative impunity (missiles and airplanes generally have a distinct heat signature). This is an overwhelming military advantage, and allows full nuclear assault on the nation of choice, with little to no chance of retaliation. The only thing stopping the US from establishing a global military empire in the true sense would be upstanding moral rectitude.
2. It provides a "godzilla" footprint for elimination of ground and sea-surface targets. Kiss your navy goodbye, as well as your silos, bases, open land armies, and leaders, without all the muss and fuss of civilian casualties and nuclear fallout. This is a force multiplier, since it can be used to strike anywhere on earth in a very short timespan.
3. And this is the part that scares the crap out of me, the first nation to control such a network would have the ability to easily deny the creation of a similar network to any other nation, by simply shooting down the defenceless rockets when they are on the way up to deploy the satellites. So first in can lock the door behind them. This is another fundamental difference between space warfare and land, air or sea warfare. There's nowhere to hide. Also as part of this, the near limitless resources of space would then be the sole dominion of that nation that establishes the network first. The thousand year Reich could never dream of such power.
And before our more military minded American cousins start crowing about the potential of Earth truly becoming "one nation under god", you can rest assured that if this were to come to pass, so would King George I, and his ruling corporate class. You can say what you like about rebellion and whatnot, but the simple fact remains that US troops are currently getting a vast amount of experience in asymmetrical warfare in Iraq. Also, so are National Guard Units.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
It seems pretty obvious to me. Any nation may claim the Moon, but it will only be able to keep that claim if it can hold the physical territory against attacks. This is just like ANY claim of land...If you can hold it militarily and it was previously unclaimed, it's yours.
It's not about getting a man on Mars, it's about getting a new Boeing plant built in Bill Frist's district.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Look at the United Nations Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The clause most obviously relevant here is Article IV (no WMDs in space; space is only for "peaceful purposes"), but what interests me more is Article II:
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
No property rights in space? Is this a misguided attempt to close off any economic incentive to explore beyond Earth, or should it be understood as limiting ownership to private entities?
Revive the Constitution.
and their payload is limited, though quite imposing.
I disagree with this point.
You can put far more ordnance on a ballistic missile submarine than you can practically put on a satellite, and they are more survivable. Each Ohio-class submarine, if loaded completely (and currently they are not; treaties require that each missile carry a reduced number of warheads than they are designed for), can carry enough megatonnage to pretty much wipe out the continent of your choice, or at least glass its major cities over. Each submarine has 24 missile tubes, each missile capable of 8 independently-targetable 475-kt warheads, so that's 192 warheads per submarine (totaling about 91.2 MT gross yield). It would take either a large constellation of armed satellites (difficult to hide) or a smaller number of very large ones, to give you the capability of each submarine. By virtue of being underwater they are both difficult to detect and track, and almost impossible to wipe out in a first strike -- the ocean is a pretty good absorber of radiation and energy. Satellites in space, even "stealth" ones, would be easier to track and destroy.
As a nuclear launch platform submarines are as close to a perfect first-strike or retaliatory weapon as you could want; and as they're crewed by human beings they have a level of intelligence that would be difficult to replicate using remotely-controlled satellites.
While I think there might be a few advantages to a satellite launch platform, as simply another way of dropping weapons onto a target, there's not enough to justify the expense.
If you want to see why the U.S. is interested in putting nukes in space for military reasons, you have to look elsewhere than just at launch capabilities. The real reasons for wanting weapons up there is as an ICBM defense; if you want National Missile Defense, you need satellites as another layer in addition to ground and air-based interceptors. The U.S. doesn't need nukes in space simply to be able to wipe out a theoretical enemy's cities, but it does need it in order to build up "defense in depth" against missiles, and to engage in anti-satellite and EMP warfare. There's no real point in spending billions on yet another method of ground-attack, a capability that we already have in spades.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
On behalf of mankind, I welcome you to planet Earth! From what star system are you visiting our fair world?
we give out very little monetary humanitarian aid to other countries
This might have something to do with how "giving money away" is less politically popular in the U.S. than defense spending is.
Any politican that gave away billions or trillions of dollars to another country would find themselves in all likelihood less popular than one who spent the same amount fighting a war against the same country. It's easy to forget now, that when the U.S. went into Iraq, it was quite popular. It's only since things have slowed down and the coverage on TV isn't as impressive, and the American death toll has increased, that public support has flagged. But when it was non-stop "watch Arabs get the shit bombed out of them" on Fox News, there was close to 80% support for it.
During peacetime (or rather, "not-currently-at-or-just-following-a-war-time"), defense spending is quite popular, and cash assistance to foreign governments is not. The political reality is that Americans would rather have their tax dollars given to the local Electric Boat, General Dynamics, or Northrop Grumman facility, than be given to foreign governments in support of something resembling a cohesive foreign policy. Then, when a foreign-policy problem does pop up, it's quite easy to look for the obvious solution ('well, heck -- what are we paying for this gigantic military for?').
Call me cynical, but look across the recent history of the United States and you'll see that we have ourselves "A Splendid Little War" about every decade or so, and then go home and lick our wounds and engage in some introspection for a while until we decide to have another go. This is not the result of any military-industrial complex conspiracy (not that they don't profit handsomely from it), but rather of the desires of the voters themselves.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Staaar Waaars, all o' the time...
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
All your space are belong to U.S.
honnold.org - sometimes-rock band, all the time awesome forum
Orbital plane shifts are not simple. Your velocity is a vector value, not a scalar one. Your orbital altitude is a function of your vector speed. Think back to whenever you studied vector-math ... {cue dream-sequence ripple-distortion effect}
... I'm not up to typing long equations here in ascii.)
If I have a vector velocity in one direction, and I add another force vector perpendicular to the original, I've done two things: the resultant vector has a new direction; the resultant vector has a larger velocity than the original. So I managed to change both my orbital plane (a little) and my altitude (more than a little.) So now I need to slow down to put myself in the same altitude as I origially was. Basically, I need [2 * (launch energy) * sin(angle change)] Joules of energy to make an orbital plane change. If you try to change your plane by 90 degrees, it costs you 2x the launch-energy to do so. (Please pardon the simplifications
That's just the on-orbit energy requirement. Don't forget you've got to ferry the necessary fuel to orbit so you can use it for plane changes. Also realize that I'm talking about delta-vector-velocity here. I don't care how you implement it - a big chemical rocket takes less time than an ion engine, but the energy required for a given delta-V is the same in both cases (measured at thrust output so we can ignore the efficiencies of either technique.) A large orbital plane change is probably the most expensive maneuver you can perform. Launching a new space station into a useful orbit is probably a more cost-effective solution. Really. And yes, IAARS.
I don't know if this is constitutional, all i could find was "[Congress shall have the power ] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas; and Offenses against the Law of Nations". I don't think we could have gone after a boat with a cannon on it (we had cannons) so why a laser in space someone has if we have one? And if anything we would be committing an offense against the law of nations, so i don't think its constitutional.
Isn't it obvious? He's from the alternate reality which Bush created. From what I hear, it's a wonderful place: in that reality, Bush is a uniter, not a divider; the mission in Iraq was accomplished, years ago; and Brownie did a heck of a job dealing with Katrina. It's not surprising that some people actually want to live in that reality!
How is this offtopic? I don't think it's particularly insightful, but it's definitely ontopic.
When it comes to pastry theft, I take the cake.
We simply can't let dusky foreigners abrogate our god-given right to torture space alien children.
THINK OF THE ALIEN CHILDREN, PEOPLE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
I'll be here all week.
"Control of space means control of the world." - Lyndon Johnson
Considering the Bush administration's track record on scientific research and exploration, I'd have to say this probably has less to do with science and entrepreneurship and more to do with tactical superiority. I know I'd sure love to have a sniper tower that high, especially when my weapon of choice happens to be a nuclear bunker buster. (If anyone here used to read Popular Science, they've run articles about this before, and none of it looked pretty.) Not to sound like I'm beating my chest here, but I'm guessing all that stuff about science is just a cover.
After all, who gives a shit about things like, oh let's say, global warming? Not this government.
If we put weapons into space, then so will everyone else. We will become much less safe. This policy is premature, expensive, and counterproductive.
There have already been monkeys in space.
With NK, Bush did everything that his opponents claim he should have done in Iraq. He didn't invade, he tried to let sanctions work, he worked with other countries. In particular the US has no direct influence over NK, they're a client of China. Bush tried to get China to deal with it.
And there's the rub: to us, Iraq and North Korea both looked about equally "evil". He invaded the one that was easier -- and one that would let him say "no, it's not just like Korea/Vietnam/...". (Even Dubya isn't dumb enough to want to be known as the president that restarted the Korean War.)
What would you guys have had him do? Invade?
I know I'm going to come across as a commie/hippie/socialist/whatever (I'm none of the above), but I think the answer is really easy: Disarm.
Talk is cheap. And it's especially hard to convince another country to not develop nukes when you're sitting on the world's biggest supply of them, and you're the only country to use them aggressively (regardless of whether it was justified or not) -- against their next-door neighbors, practically.
America has a huge military budget, and it's only gotten bigger under Bush. And he's shown he's not afraid to use it, even against countries that pose no direct threat to the US. Militarily, if you're an up-and-coming country (which NK thinks it is), getting nukes is the best plan of action. Anything else ends "...and hope the US doesn't decide to invade us". It's not (necessarily) aggressive; it's taking control of your own destiny.
I'm not suggesting, even, that the US get rid of its military, or even all of its nukes. Just show that we're willing to be a Team Player in the world community. If Bush wants others to disarm, taking the first step himself would go a long way towards credibility.
I don't know that this would have stopped Korea from developing a nuke, but it couldn't hurt. It's not like Bush doesn't have enough bombs to level the entire Korean peninsula and make it uninhabitable for millenia, even if they reduced their stockpile by half.
Its a positive survival trait to be able and willing to share..
Why can't we do more to end global poverty? The US could do so much more to make us secure that way with 1/10 or our war chest than all the smart bombs and dumb missiles in the world..
Hmmm, running numbers always help matters a lot. Given the current weight of 200 metric tons and power supply of 20kW, I calculate that the power supply would generate the necessary energy over 20 years. I think it's a doable problem if you can figure out how to resupply the ISS when it's no longer in orbits serviceable by the current Russian rockets.
Anyway, here's the calculation. Velocity is 7,700 m/s, mass is 200,000 kg, kinetic energy is roughly 6E+12 Joules. That's about 20kW full blast for 20 years which probably isn't remotely reasonable. But on the other hand, you can probably strip the station of much of its mass and either return that to Earth or let it burn up in atmosphere. And this should be able to provide a supplemental source of power.
To do my approach (in 5 years), you'd probably need 100kW consistently. High tech solution would probably be VASIMR powered by a Russian nuclear reactor. Microwave beamed power from Earth might work too. No human presence for obvious reasons. Alternately, bring up a bunch of chemical rockets with fuel and boost, bit by bit.
I am rapidly losing all enthusiasm for this move idea though. That is a lot of energy and a long time over which the ISS just isn't usable either because it is uninhabitable or because it's in a weird orbit. It is in a great orbit for a space tourism or lab platform especially since there's easy access from Russia.
Yep, it figures: the earlier declarations of a peaceful cooperative civilian exploration and colonization of space seemed incredibly out of character for a President as "uncurious" as this one, and now it becomes evident that indeed it is out of character: the true agenda is to militarize space, and do it using protection of the civilian presence as the excuse.
Orbital plane shifts are not simple. Your velocity is a vector value, not a scalar one.
... I'm not up to typing long equations here in ascii.)
;-)
::raises eyebrow:: Not the type that saves marooned satellites obviously ::grin::
Correct so far.
If I have a vector velocity in one direction, and I add another force vector perpendicular to the original, I've done two things: the resultant vector has a new direction; the resultant vector has a larger velocity than the original. So I managed to change both my orbital plane (a little) and my altitude (more than a little.) So now I need to slow down to put myself in the same altitude as I origially was.
True, but stupid and irrelevant. It's much more efficient to apply a single deltaV change. For example for a 90 degree plane change the deltaV is sqrt(2) = 1.4142 times the orbital velocity at 135 degrees to the original vector.
Basically, I need [2 * (launch energy) * sin(angle change)] Joules of energy to make an orbital plane change. If you try to change your plane by 90 degrees, it costs you 2x the launch-energy to do so. (Please pardon the simplifications
So a 180 degree plane change (reversing your orbit) is free? I think you should check your equation
Try 2*(orbital speed)*sin(angle change/2).
Which, ta da, gives 2*orbital speed for reversing, and 1.4142 for a 90 degree plane change. Note: orbital speed, not launch "energy" (deltaV, presumably), which includes losses irrelevant to orbit changes.
And that's not even the most efficient way to do it. It's pretty obvious that you can do better by boosting to a higher orbit before doing the plane change. This lets you swap kinetic energy for potential energy, do the plane change at far lower velocity, and then swap the potential energy back to kinetic.
For example, from any circular orbit you can raise the high point to infinity by increasing your speed to sqrt(2) times the orbital velocity, that is a deltaV of 0.4142 of the orbital velocity. Once at the high point you have (essentially) zero velocity and can make an arbitrary plane change for free, and then fall back to your low altitude in the new orbital plane and use another 0.4142 of circular orbit velocity (at that altitude) to slow back down into a circular orbit. Total deltaV is 0.8284 times orbital velocity to e.g. reverse your orbit. That's a just a little bit less than 2 * orbital velocity.
This is a very efficient way to make any plane change whatsoever, but it takes a very long time. Compromises can be quicker while being not much more expensive. For example, for a 90 degree plane change you can do a 0.25 * orbital speed burn, boosting apogee to 3.57 times the original orbital radius at 0.35 times the original speed, do a 0.5 times original speed burn to change planes, and then fall back to the original altitude and do another 0.25 times original speed burn to leave you in the new circular orbit. Total deltaV expenditure: 1.0 times orbital speed. That's considerably cheaper than the 1.4142 times orbital speed deltaV of doing it directly (let alone the 2.0 times orbital speed of your method).
And yes, IAARS.
Oh?
Hey sometimes it's a fair question.
So, now they *are* going to fix the Hubble?
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
...it's probably aimed to state that they will ignore the consensus for the non-militarisation of space.
For example, it would be very easy for the US to put into orbit "satellite killer" satellites. hell, a bag of ballbearings pushed in the approx direction would take out quite a few as they're all in a similar orbit to remain geosynchronous, aren't they?
This is currently considered too provocative to attempt, but it's very tempting for a superpower to do this as it would leave them with control of the only functioning spy and communication satellites...
The stakes are very high. Do you mean you would rather see us ALL, (meaning all of us in humanity) potentially dead than change your (by all accounts narrow) worldview?
Because that is the current 'default' situation... Thats the path we are going down..
Did you know that the one month (1/12) of the annual cost of the US war effort in Iraq would feed and provide basic medical care for all the hungry people in the world for one year..
Don't you think that that would be a better way to prevent terrorism? (Rather than subsidizing a bunch of obscenely wasteful and arrogant corporations)
I'll give you another three magic words. Mutually Assured Destruction. The idea is that no matter how many nukes you lob at me, I can still lob enough nukes at you to wipe your country off the map. First strike is irrelevant.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Is it better to have whatever weapons of mass destruction Iraq produced scattered to the winds, as they are now, or as they were before? Neither.
The thing that disturbs me the most is this. "Knowing" what we claim to know about Iraq's aims and programs, WHY WEREN'T WE MAKING IT MUCH MORE OF A PRIORITY WHEN WE WENT IN THERE TO FIND THESE WEAPONS AND MATERIALS AND PUT THEM UNDER LOCK AND KEY???
It's a matter of historical fact that when we invaded Iraq, we were EXCEEDINGLY CARELESS about allowing Saddam's weapons, INCLUDING EXTREMELY HIGH EXPLOSIVES AND HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR MATERIALS to be STOLEN from *completely unguarded facilities*.. during that period of weeks, even months, before the MEDIA put pressure on the Bush administration to FINALLY go in and lock them up and even then, this was not adequately done..
I don't even know if it has been done NOW..
One would almost think that they covertly WANTED THE INSURGENCY TO HAPPEN!!!
See:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/ 2002076232_weapons29.html
Also, this story was in the Washington Post.. its gone now..
Boy, do I feel secure.... NOT..
Iraqi Nuclear Site Is Found Looted:
U.S. Team Unable to Determine Whether Deadly Materials Are Missing
by Barton Gellman
NEAR KUT, Iraq, May 3 -- A specially trained Defense Department team, dispatched after a month of official indecision to survey a major Iraqi radioactive waste repository, today found the site heavily looted and said it was impossible to tell whether nuclear materials were missing.
The discovery at the Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility was the second since the end of the war in which a known nuclear cache was plundered extensively enough that authorities could not rule out the possibility that deadly materials had been stolen. The survey, conducted by a U.S. Special Forces detachment and eight nuclear experts from a Pentagon office called the Direct Support Team, appeared to offer fresh evidence that the war has dispersed the country's most dangerous technologies beyond anyone's knowledge or control.
In all, seven sites associated with Iraq's nuclear program have been visited by the Pentagon's "special nuclear programs" teams since the war ended last month. None was found to be intact, though it remains unclear what materials -- if any -- had been removed.
Enclosed by a sand berm four miles around and 160 feet high, the Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility entombs what remains of reactors bombed by Israel in 1981 and the United States in 1991. It has stored industrial and medical wastes, along with spent reactor fuel. Though not suitable to produce a fission bomb, the highest-energy isotopes here, including cesium and cobalt, have been sought by terrorists interested in using conventional explosives to scatter radioactive dust.
One team member said the quantities measured today would not suffice for that purpose, but others expressed doubt that the survey was complete. It was impossible to determine what may have been removed -- by unknowing looters, by knowledgeable thieves bent on black-market trade or by former Iraqi officials seeking to conceal evidence of banned weapons programs.
The most important looted nuclear site, less than a mile down the road, is the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, where U.N. weapons inspectors had catalogued tons of partially enriched uranium and natural uranium -- metals suitable for processing into the core of a nuclear weapon. Iraqi civilians have stripped it of computers, furniture and much equipment; whether dangerous nuclear materials were taken is unknown.
U.S. authorities do not know what is missing, if anything, because of an ongoing conflict between the Bush administration and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as a dispute within the administration about how much to involve the IAEA in Iraq. The unresolved struggle
meant..
People like Osama Bin Laden terrify me.. (which is clearly their intent.)
I don't deny, though that I do see our current leadership as having an uncomfortable cult-like arrogance to them that makes me feel that they are dangerous leaders for a nation like ours. They simply do not see the importance of guiding America on a path that includes the interests of all of us.
In fact, bluntly, I read a lot of history and in recent history I have often seen this kind of contempt for the common people before and it always leads to disaster.
The most important aspect of America, I feel, for most of us is democracy. When we think of the freedoms that make this country great, at the core of that greatness lies an inclusiveness and humanity that brings together all of our strengths and weaknesses to form a wisdom that self-styled guardians of property rights (how I think the GOP leadership primarily sees themselves) lack.
I don't think the #1 priority of 99% of all Americans is so much preserving the status quo as it is forging a future in which we all can participate.. even if it means hashing out workable compromises on important issues like healthcare, etc. But unfortunately, our leadership doesn't see it that way. They see themselves as duty bound to preserve the ever-increasing pie of the few at the expense of everyone else, even if it destroys this country and all it stands for. They want to hold back progress on things Americans agree on, poll after poll shows. And in order to do that they have repeatedly, desperately tried to do everything in their power to divide all of us.
The motto of this nation, translated, as I understand it, is "Out of Many, One". The people who founded this nation had a profound distrust of governments and they set out to create a government that had limits on its ability to exercise power over the common people. They were terrified of the threat of state-sponsored religion, and they were also terrified of the greed and power of corporations unchecked.. (like the British East India Company, for example)
We need to re-prioritize our goals in order to preserve something that was at one time unique to the United States and which is now the pathway to a global peace and that is the strengthening of a strong middle class and its values..
Otherwise, in 50 years, ALL wealth will be inherited wealth, everything worthwhile will be unattainable for most people. If we can keep our eyes on that prize, much unnecessary pain will be avoided..
To do that we have to reign in the corporation.. if we don't do that, its all over..
Lets not forget that Saddam was supported by the US for much of his reign of terror..
After that, we DID have a responsibility to remove him... But for this administration to remove him was the right thing for the wrong reasons.. because we all know they did it for the oil and for the chance to profit from the obscene profits of war..
Its like giving them a license to steal..
These cowboys don't even understand what honesty is..
Qualifications - one satellite on-orbit, one in a clean-room pending launch, one on STS-116, and another slated for launch in about 3 months. Designed and built by me. Honest. They're all designed for LEO, and none have propulsion systems.
... sort of. I was crafting an answer for the Slashbot crowd. The sun was in my eyes. There were locusts. It's not my fault!
...)
That said, I have never had the luxury of being in a position to change a spacecraft's orbital plane. Moving to a higher orbit and making the change there is definitely the minimum-energy solution. However, I chose the less optimal solution in order to make the point - changing your orbital plane isn't nearly as simple as turning on the blinker and rotating the steering wheel a little. I'm pretty sure I included a disclaimer to that effect
I doubt I'll get the opportunity to play with propulsion systems, too. The Gub'ment has placed restrictions on all the "fun" chemicals to the point that you need a LEUP to even think about building chemical motors. And in the context of the original discussion, I don't see anybody putting an ion/arcjet/PPT/etc low-thrust engine on the ISS and moving it a substantial amount in a reasonable time. The ISS is like any other vehicle - it's consumable (not an investment like the car dealers like to say) and needs to be replaced at the end of it's life.
So no, salvaging marooned satellites ain't my thing. Hell, the customer should be thankful that his crummy satellite got off this rock. Not in the "right" plane? Eh, suck it up, slacker. (of course, I never get to say things like that in front of the customer